Cankid

Well, I think this is fantastic. I really hope this becomes an ongoing initiative to reward responsible cache hiders. I don't want to leap in too early making suggestions but if the algorithm does factor in a way of calculating cache health score, could that be implemented in listings like how favourite points are displayed? I mean, it could just be as simple as a cache with 0% health is disabled, one with 50% health has an enable log after a disable log and one with 100% has an enable log AND a owner maintenance log. DNFs could lower it by maybe 5% per log but an owner maintenance returns it to 100%. It could also be pushed to classifying owners as either highly responsive COs to unresponsive COs based off their aggregate cache health score. I don't know, these are just some ideas for further encouraging owners to take care of their hides. I'm just very happy to see a new injection of virtual caches into the community. EDIT: This may not be an original idea so I apologise if someone has suggested this before

The only problem I see with this is that the only readily accessible bit of info users have access to is the State field in the listing. They could run calculations on the GPS coordinates and come up with a physical location based on their border data, but there's no guarantee that will match PGC's. The only universal bit of data everyone can rely on equally for the same results (even if the location isn't actually correct) is the listing's State/Province field. You're saying PGC doesn't have access to that field? That seems odd. No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country). If Project-GC has access to that field, then can a CCO request that the geocache listing's State field is used instead of map data?

I've been watching these forums about challenge caches closely since the moratorium but I am not sure if this has already been covered. After the new framework was announced, I applied at Project GC for a checker for a challenge I had been wanting to do for ages (and only recently qualified for myself). The process was pretty easy, the volunteers helped me straighten out a few details and then made the checker for me. The checker works well but it has one little issue. It seems that Project GC relies on map data to determine the state in which a cache is located, even though the COs have listed the state themselves. As a result, a cache that I am using to qualify for the challenge is listed as being in the wrong state (NSW) on Project GC but the right state (ACT) on geocaching.com. Expanding on this, I found a further 60 caches that fall into this criteria in my state. This seems to effect state-based challenges (as far as I have tested since yesterday ) as some of the caches have listed coordinates that are well out of the state but have GZs that are very much inside state boundaries. My question is, what happens when the cache information on Project GC does not match that on geocaching.com? This isn't a criticism of Project GC (I'm really thankful for their help as I don't know much code beyond very basic python), I am just interested in the wider implications. As a result, I wouldn't be able to publish the cache straight away with the new guidelines (I have gotten in contact with my reviewer so this isn't about my cache, rather other similar scenarios). Also, thanks for bringing challenges back! I'm happy to try and work with the new guidelines to produce some interesting and fun challenges! Sorry if this has already been brought up and discussed, with more than 20 pages of posts on both forums, I'm sure it can be forgiven if I have overlooked previous discussion...

Using no filter on Project GC, the top logged cache is GC189E5 in Czech Republic... http://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopLoggedCaches?submit=Filter

I agree with lamoracke, I would like to see virtuals (webcams included) and locationless returned with quite a few limitations. There a just some places that a physical cache will not work with. In Australia, all of the national parks in New South Wales are off limits to physical caches without filling out paperwork. It would be nice to see a weekend every five years or so where new virtuals are created. Most of the waymarks near me are for commercial businesses, which is pretty boring. I posted some ideas (and stats) in one of these forums a few years ago: (Click Here)

Thanks for the work you have done, I only really use it when people message me (I still prefer the ol' fashioned email) but I am sure others really appreciate it. One more thing that could be added, to make the message center a more suitable substitute to Facebook or email, is user activity. It would be nice to see when other users are online so I can actually have a conversation with them. There are a couple of other things (like seeing when people are typing a response or replying through email) which could be useful but a bit of a stretch for the time being...

Geoart isn't as big in Australia although there are still a few around. There are a few basic ones (like love hearts made out of puzzles) but there are also some really great Traditional cache geoart. One was published close to home recently, a large kangaroo. Puzzles are only used where forestry operations are occurring. You can only walk the trail and while it can be done over 25 km walking straight between each cache, is more realistically done on the trails for a 75 km route which takes 3 days. There is some real elevation changes in there. Some serious effort was put into this one... (Yes, there is a star as well which is a separate geoart)

I had been hoping that there might be a special event type (like the 10 years one) but this is probably just me... I'll wait another 5-10 years for the next one! I don't know if there was an issue last time so I may have been wrong in hoping for a new one. A souvenir is better than nothing so I thank GS for setting it up!

Ah ok, thanks!

Sorry if this is a double post but I recently uploaded a few images to a new puzzle of mine and I noticed that the URL was a bit different to the usual imgcdn.geocaching.com URL. The new URL is d1u1p2xjjiahg3.cloudfront.net. I also found that images that were previously uploaded with the old URL stayed the same but if you copy the last part of it and place it after the new URL, it stays the same. One final thing though, if you try to do it the other way, then the page redirects back to the new URL from the old one. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me? I searched the new URL and found that most results related to Geocaching.

I have only had a few awkward interactions with muggles when caching, once with the police even (who knew what we were doing as they had been sitting there all morning watching people find the cache and asking them what they were doing ) but by far the most awkward one I had was when my family had stopped off in a major rest stop on the highway to find a cache with a lot of favourite points! We parked and I went out and made the find with my dad but it was clear that we were not alone. Someone, somewhere had arranged something with someone else to meet at this spot and these people were waiting. When we pulled up, they drove out of their spot and parked next to us. Fearing what might happen next, we left pretty quickly but it did seem like this may have been a local drug drop. We were relieved we didn't wait around to see what they wanted!

Thanks all for the great responses! From the info from Moun10Bike, the earliest "TFTC" only log I could find was this one by seabiskit.

Stupid question probably but, is there some sort of slow build up to the TFTC only logs, or did they just suddenly appear at some point in time?

Hello, I am coming to Japan from Australia and would like to see if there is anyone who would like to hide a cache with me in Nara. I am thinking of doing this because I am coming from Canberra and Nara is a sister city of ours. The cache would involve two placed. One in Canberra, Australia and one in Nara, Japan. To get the final coordinates for the one in Japan, you would need to communicate with someone from someone in Australia and vice versa. If you are interested in doing this, please either post here or send me a message and we can talk about it and hopefully place the caches. Regards, Cankid

There's a Homer, NY about 22 miles from where I live. It would also be interesting to see "Sister city" caches. Apparently the sister city for the town I live in is Eldoret, Rift Valley Province, Kenya. I had never heard of Eldoret before and wonder what the connection might be, and then noticed the it's the location of Moi University. I did some training (as a trainer) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania a couple of years ago and several of the attendees were from Moi University. I doubt that any of them are geocachers but there *are* a couple of caches there. It looks like the sister cities for Homer, Alaska are Teshio, Japan and Yelizovo, Russia. If you want to partner up AK>>NY, I'm in! I would but, I'm not doing much caching locally anymore (if 22 miles is local). I just don't get up to Homer, NY often enough to justify placing a cache. I know a cacher that lives in Homer though and can check if he's interested. Point them my way! If anyone else is interested, I'm still updating the "Partner Finder" spreadsheet. (take that one to out of context, will ya wmpastor...) Right now I have: J Grouchy: Atlanta, GA, USA NeverSummer: Homer/Anchor Point, AK, USA GopherGreg: Ottawa, Ont., Canada Cankid: Canberra, ACT, Australia Yorkshire Yellow: Stroud, UK coman123: Kingston, Ont., Canada Once I start seeing requests to my PM inbox here on the forums, I will start posting images of the list. There, I fixed it for you!

There's a Homer, NY about 22 miles from where I live. It would also be interesting to see "Sister city" caches. Apparently the sister city for the town I live in is Eldoret, Rift Valley Province, Kenya. I had never heard of Eldoret before and wonder what the connection might be, and then noticed the it's the location of Moi University. I did some training (as a trainer) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania a couple of years ago and several of the attendees were from Moi University. I doubt that any of them are geocachers but there *are* a couple of caches there. It looks like the sister cities for Homer, Alaska are Teshio, Japan and Yelizovo, Russia. If you want to partner up AK>>NY, I'm in! I would but, I'm not doing much caching locally anymore (if 22 miles is local). I just don't get up to Homer, NY often enough to justify placing a cache. I know a cacher that lives in Homer though and can check if he's interested. Point them my way! If anyone else is interested, I'm still updating the "Partner Finder" spreadsheet. (take that one to out of context, will ya wmpastor...) Right now I have: J Grouchy: Atlanta, GA, USA NeverSummer: Homer/Anchor Point, AK, USA GopherGreg: Ottawa, Ont., Canada Cankid: Canberra, ACT, Australia Yorkshire Yellow: Stroud, UK coman123: Kingston, Ont., Canada Once I start seeing requests to my PM inbox here on the forums, I will start posting images of the list. There, I fixed it for you!

I might be able to help out here! I am from Australia.

You should check your emails for the archive log and there will be a link to the cache there. If you know the name, just search it in your emails!

Where in Australia will you be? Each area is its own case when it comes to wildlife...

That just tells me that any number of finds is the wrong measure to determine whether someone is ready to hide a quality cache (or list a quality webcam/virtual cache). I was trying to talk about that the fact that the desires of the GC community have changed. Back when virtuals were still around, I am sure it would be different compared to today but I couldn't be sure. It seems the perspective has moved to making and finding more. I think the more major points in my first post are the ones that come after the first, as they have a greater effect on the current day issues surrounding the return of virtual/webcam caches. I don't know what other people get from it.

So how does spending a few hours on a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail do anything to address "the past issues" with virtual/webcam caches? While it is important to consider the "past issues," it is about moving forward and trying to find a viable solution to the problem. At this time in caching, it seems that people desire quantity rather that quality. Yes, someone could do a quick powertrail and get quick finds. Yes, I could do that too. But the GPS is just too far away...

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread). - Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented. As I did state when I posted this, these were only a few quick ideas. I am not sure about now but when I hid my first cache, it RECOMMENDED that you should have found 20 or so. This was so you could get an idea of what a cache was really like. I tried to apply a similar concept. I thought that if you were going to take that extra step and start paying to find caches then it was more likely you would continue to do GC and be able to maintain hides. Now I know this wouldn't work in all circumstances, I know so very good cachers who aren't premium members. That is why there is a limit. Again, just ideas...

For the virtuals and webcams issue there are MANY things a serious talk could sort out. In my honest opinion, if these types were to return, special guidelines would need to be implemented. These could be SIMILAR TOO (not exactly the same as); Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues The ‘WOW’ factor would be necessary There would have to be a set of questions that need to be answered BEFORE a cache is published by the CO There would be specialised reviewers, like with the case of Earthcaches, to review Virtuals and webcam caches to take the strain off reviewers of regular type caches There could also be a ‘licensing’ system for these types where, if caches aren’t maintained or well kept, this license could lose ‘points’ or be revoked all together. This could also apply to how cachers currently treat their caches as well as these virtuals and, if there is fake logging, this could also constitute loss of these privileges Along with the licensing, a kind of demerit point system Another feature to prevent false logging of these types is to implement a feature like that of Trackables, where a code is required to log the cache. This would be given to the cacher upon receiving email with correct answers. No ‘Photo-only’ questions. This would also require the CO to actually VISIT the cache site (crazy as it sounds) and come up with a question that cannot be answered by use of Internet source NO POWERTRAILS! Obligations of the cacher; To maintain both physical site and cache page To answer emails promptly To be cooperative with the reviewer To listen to the landowners Obligations of the reviewer; To review caches at a certain time (e.g at the end of every week) To act if caches aren’t maintained To review caches to a high standard To know the area and features Penalties for failure to comply; Loss of points or complete loss of license Loss of cache (i.e adopted out to a more ‘suitable owner’) Questions before the cache is published; Do you have access to this site? Have you obtained permission if that is necessary due to the cache’s location? Has this already been covered? What are cachers coming to this site for OTHER THAN this geocache? What is the ‘WOW’ factor? What is needed to answer questions for this cache? What are the answers to these questions if that is necessary for the reviewer to know? These are the questions that would need to be answered before the cache is published. These are just a few ideas, if you would like to expand or dismiss them then feel free to do so. These are only ideas, they can be changed or ignored, I won’t think too differently about it. Just no personal attacks please! BTW, here are some stats I took a while ago, don’t know how up to date it is: Amount of Virtuals worldwide - 4860 America – 3928 or 80.9% UK – 197 or 4.1% Canada – 143 or 3% Australia – 61 or 1.3% Germany – 59 or 1.2% Hungary – 47 or 1% Netherlands – 37 or 0.8% Italy – 29 or 0.6% France – 25 or 0.5% New Zealand – 22 or 0.5% Amount of Webcams worldwide – 418 America – 179 or 42.8% Germany – 116 or 27.8% UK – 18 or 4.3% Finland – 13 or 3.1% Switzerland – 13 or 3.1% Canada – 12 or 2.9% Australia – 9 or 2.2% Netherlands – 7 or 1.7% Sweden – 7 or 1.7% Spain – 6 or 1.4% All I am trying to do is continue to generate the discussion rather than another "+1"

I would totally do this! Great idea. This one could work really well and I like the listing example!

HISTORICAL CACHES as earth caches, historical caches could be a great alternative to know the history of a city, a building, a particular site or someone influential of that particular place. It could refer to the same process of an earth cache, just think about those different historical tables placed in the cities of the world. it would be a great way to get to know the environment in which you're geocaching and like the earth caches knowing about new places that we would never have visited otherwise. Yes! I've thought this way for some time. Only problem I see is that people would want to place every historical marker as a HISTORICAL CACHE. But then half of them at least already have a micro cache stuck on them or sometimes a regular size one hidden nearby. I can see this working! It does sound like a good idea. Maybe it's own reviewing system like Earthcaches? Or even it's own reviewers! I know some places of interest that could be included. It could kind of be a new start for virtuals (which is good!) and another upside is less micros!